United healthcare CEO assassinated, the P&E edition {This is not a gun debate/statistics thread!}

Do we?

I don’t. Oh significant irritation and frustration, needless stress, yes I have that lived experience, worse than what @puzzlegal shared sure, but to “disaster” level? Nah.

And pretty much all the polling agrees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/13/us/elections/health-insurance-polls.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lE4.v43q.SPq9MuDfAUmD&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

(Gift link.)

The vast majority rate their own coverage as good or excellent despite having had some problem with it at some point.

Yes there is fear about the expense of a future healthcare event, but even among those in self rated fair or poor health (vs good or excellent) a very solid majority rate their coverage as good to excellent.

Moreover there is, regrettably, no overwhelming consensus to move away from the employer provided private coverage. It is about an even split with Republicans still solidly against it.

People recognize the system is not great. They aren’t idiots. But they are not in agreement over what to do and few are dealing with “disasters” in managing healthcare coverage.

It is just a factually incorrect statement.

I do. Not any of my experiences, but the two guys i knew who died due to lack of coverage.

Very sad. And you clearly state: a result of lack of coverage. A great argument for single payer and true universal healthcare which I personally would support but at least half of America does not. Barring that true universal healthcare that involves current insurance companies would also save lives. A worse value proposition in my mind but it would save lives.

Am I misunderstanding though? Is @Cheesesteak saying that all of us are or personally know someone with disasters from being uninsured? That the significantly decreased but still nonzero rate of uninsured is why people say “meh he had it coming”?

They didn’t instead complain about us all being forced to be customers?

Established btw that bankruptcies due to healthcare costs, true disasters, do occur people with coverage, and have not meaningfully decreased in numbers. I am sure that someone here knows of someone who had that happen. But we “all know people, or are people” with those disasters by way of being no choice customers?

Any volunteered anecdotes can be noted, but the fact remains that most people do not.

I think your inference is unfounded. People vote D or R for a variety of reasons, healthcare almost always not one of them. Elections are not like salad bars that allow you to sprinkle the delightful bacon crumbs on top. You get all of one thing or all of the other, no substitutions. I suspect if Medicare-for-All was actually on the ballot, it would pass comfortably, but Congress is so gerrymandered that it will always look like there is majority opposition.

Well, my uncle had to declare bankruptcy and lose the family farm due to medical costs: my aunt was not quite old enough to qualify for medicare when she was in her final illness. I don’t think they had the resources to think about the whole situation at a level much beyond the immediate, and certainly no wherewithal to think about how the system might change or how they might change the system. Certainly my uncle was sad about it, but I don’t think he was angry or perceived it as especially injust. I did, but my opinion wasn’t really relevant.

I don’t think the bankruptcy would have happened had they been a bit more organized and savvy with other aspects of their life and finances.

Look at the NYT link.

A partisan split does emerge, however, when Americans are asked if they would prefer a government-run health care system, or one based mostly on private insurers. Seventy-one percent of Democrats preferred a government-run system, compared with just 21 percent of Republicans. Overall, the nation is split on which system they’d prefer, with 49 percent of Americans saying they favor private insurance and 46 percent saying they would prefer a government-run system.

It’s no inference. It’s the numbers on the specific question. The trend is moving in what I see as the right direction but it is not yet there. Maybe some day.

The BBC has an article on people struggling to get care covered that seems relevant to this discussion

Many people have the choice of health care plans. Kaiser doesnt suffer from any of the issues mentioned here. There are others.

You forgot the poll where someone murdered a CEO and millions of people cheered in response. Sure, when you ask a variety of structured questions people respond to some of them that they are satisfied, but cheering the murder of an insurance company CEO isn’t the response of truly satisfied people.

Let’s note from that article

“worried about being able to afford unexpected medical bills” is worry about how much it’s going to cost you to keep living. Every single one of those worriers knows who gets rich when they get sick and can’t really afford to keep living.

I actually looked at the link. Then I followed the link included in the article to the Gallup poll the article sighted.

Gallup’s webpage is titled More in U.S. See Health Coverage as Government Responsibility.

The first sentence in that report: " Sixty-two percent of U.S. adults, the highest percentage in more than a decade, say it is the federal government’s responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage. "

Kaiser though is a special case. They are a vertically integrated entity: the insurance company at the top to the hospital to the providers. The docs all follow the protocols that are declared as the proper ones. Even UHC with its Optum physician arms does not have that level of control of what the docs do.

Uh no. I do interpret that differently than you do though.

@2nd_Law, yes. That is progress. But more of them want that accomplished by further private insurance company coverage than through the government directly providing the coverage. That was the point. They prefer to have the private insurance coverage they have expanding to all, over expansion of government run services by way of Medicaid for All or similar.

It’s the same trope as “Congress is a bunch of lying, conniving thieves – except my representative. I’ll vote for him.”

Since 1964 the reelection of incumbents to Congress has approached only 80% twice, in 1970 and 2010. 2024 it was 100% for all intents and purposes.

The latest from United Health Care (and I realize this may not be the whole story): They are refusing to pay for inpatient hospital care for a woman who had a cerebral hemorrhage and is on life support, because it may not be medically necessary.

(As for the $50 Tylenol mentioned elsewhere in this video, my old hospital charged about $5, FWIW, and that was actually for the employees’ time in writing, processing, administering, and charting the dosage.)

Rarely have you ever had anything denied. Here in California, I’d say the KP psychiatry/mental health acceptance rate may be 5% (do the math). With the denial of necessary mental health treatment being the norm. I can’t know the numbers of suicides this had led to, but it is too many.

It also has pissed-off mental health care-givers so much many went on strike in Southern California. The Northern California strike was some months earlier.

Also, from here you can read about KP actually admitting guilt and backing off an appeal to a $4 million fine in 2014

KAISER PERMANENTE ADMITS GUILT – HMO DENIED PATIENTS ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Kaiser drops appeal, agrees to pay near-record $4 million fine for mental health care violations

Despite admission of guilt, nation’s largest HMO continues to violate state law and has not produced plan for correcting its faults

And here a major healthcare workers union accuses KP of more illegal denials:

Kaiser Permanente is facing allegations from the National Union of Healthcare Workers that it improperly denied members mental healthcare.

The allegations come after Kaiser Permanente reached a $200 million settlement with the California Department of Managed Health Care, after an investigation found Kaiser violated timely access and clinical standards, and in some cases canceled members’ behavioral health appointments.

There are so many cites of KP fucking over its mental health patients that I can’t handle sifting through them all. Sorry… I’m one of the ones who has been denied necessary care for my noodle, so it hurts to search through all their criminality.

a decade ago.

If you go back to that cite, it shows Kaiser is tied for lowest denial rates.

Every big corporation in America has had some issues, Kaiser is not unique.

In late 2023, Kaiser paid a $50 million fine and agreed to invest $150 million in expanded mental health services. Their average wait times were 19 days, which was 9 days over what California law required.

The state of California passed a set of mental health laws in 2022, 2023, and 2024. I don’t know a lot about them. But saying Kaiser is bad on mental health is not an apples-to-apples comparison, since Kaiser appears to face sharply higher standards than they would in the typical US state. This appears to me to be a regulatory adjustment process, not unusual and not reflecting terribly on Kaiser. But I don’t know the details and we’ll see how they perform moving forwards.

(Regulatory adjustment process: that’s a cold way of putting it. But lots of regulation involves health, safety, and yes the mitigation of actual harm.)

Bits and pieces of the US medical system work tolerably well. The Veterans administration. Kaiser. Mayo. Parts of the medical system look like they operate ok, until the individual patient finds themselves with a serious malady - Medicare Advantage plans are said to have this property. The wider problem is systemic, but there are better and worse players.

I suspect a sane US medical care system would look something like Kaiser. That wouldn’t make the politics go away: if anything greater governmental involvement would increase political scrutiny, just as it does in other OECD countries. But the US would receive sharply better outcomes at lower costs.

I’m not sure this needs a whole new thread? It’s thematically connected, anyway.

CEO of State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation has house riddled with gunfire | Insurance Business America

Police in Lake Oswego, a city near Portland, reported that multiple shots were fired at the residence of Chip Terhune, the president and CEO of State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation (SAIF), in the early morning hours of February 21. Security footage captured a suspect near the property, dressed in dark clothing and possibly wearing a hoodie or ski mask. Officials believe the shooter fled in a nearby vehicle.

Following the attack, Terhune revealed in an internal company-wide email that he had received a threatening message from someone claiming responsibility for the shooting. “We have received an email threat purporting to be the person(s) responsible. Although it does not target any specific employee, the email references knowledge of employee and relatives’ names and addresses,” he wrote. He advised SAIF employees to be cautious and remain aware of their surroundings.

We all knew Mario was still out there…

But not Luigi, who was thorough and methodical: he would not have been wasting bullets randomly shooting at a house. And SAIF is a non-profit that handles workmen’s comp, not a huge private insurer: the look here would not be so good.

The Feds are seeking the death penalty